Yes. There is a growing appreciation that the definitions as to what constitute suitable projects will have to be changed. Infrastructural development which makes a broader contribution to the development of a region will qualify, rather than having it directly linked, as it is, with artisan projects and so on. I will deal in detail with some of the issues involved.
In paragraph 2 of the draft report we draw attention to the three sources of finance not normally taken into account when considering regional development. There are loans from the European Investment Bank, the "Ortoli Facility" and the system of funding by way of interest rate subsidies which came into existence when Ireland began to participate in the EMS. These instruments are new schemes which can also be used to finance infrastructure.
Paragraph 4 covers the amendment of the Regional Fund in 1979. The Fund was devided into Quota and Non-Quota Sections. The non-Quota Section represents only 5 per cent of the Fund. A more flexible definition of eligible infrastructure was introduced and an increased intervention rate from 30 to 40 per cent was brought in for certain infrastructural projects. More important, certain administrative improvements were introduced, including accelerated payments, so that the cash flow would be improved. Instead of having approvals awaiting funds, the money will be made available smartly.
The new infrastructure provisions are outlined in paragraph 5. It will be seen that the old definition was unduly restrictive, particularly from Ireland's point of view, insofar as the provision of adequate infrastructure is a necessary prerequisite to the attraction of industry to less-developed areas. The widening of the areas to which the Fund can be applied is a good thing.
Paragraph 6 refers to a situation where there is a contribution to the development of the region or area in which the project is located. There is a very broad definition and it means that it will not be necessary in future to establish a direct industrial link.
Paragraph 8 points out that the next review of the Fund regulation is due by next January. Paragraph 10 states that Ireland's share was 6 per cent of the original Fund and paragraph 11 shows that it has now been increased to 6.46 per cent under the Quota Section alone. Paragraph 13 refers to the cross-Border aspect which we will deal with more fully in a moment. There are funds available now for cross-Border projects.
Paragraph 15 covers the Non-Quota Section. The proposals relate to a five-year programme for 1980-85 and it will be seen in respect of the Irish Border Projects that 16 million units of account are proposed for Ireland and eight million for Northern Ireland. Paragraph 16 elaborates on this. This special five-year programme is very exciting. Its economic objectives are in the field of tourism, communications and artisan enterprises. It will cover Counties Donegal, Leitrim, Cavan, Monaghan and Louth in the Republic and the council districts of Londonderry, Strabane, Omagh, Fermanagh, Dungannon, Armagh, Newry and Mourne in Northern Ireland, the programme to be financed jointly by the two Member States and the Community, with support from the Fund. Page 8 of the draft report lays out in detail what each project will entail. Support will vary from 50 to 70 per cent, depending on the project in question.
That brings us to the question of transport infrastructure. It is dealt with in paragraph 17. Until now, the common transport policy has been concerned with freeing transport operations from restrictive regulations. It has been seen that that policy will not achieve the objectives defined for it in the Treaty unless it relates more to transport infrastructure. So there is an opening up of possibilities under the new proposals.
Paragraph 18 states that the volume of traffic between EEC States is growing twice as fast as national traffic. This clearly points to the need for a cross-boundary transport policy. The paragraph spells out the fact that if any Member State did a cost-benefit analysis of transport development which did not take into account its impact on other countries it would be wrong. That is what it amounts to.
We say in paragraph 19 that the Commission believe that the Community's interest in transport infrastructure is reinforced by its impact on the economic, industrial, regional, environmental and energy policies of the Community. It is a very important paragraph. It says: "In relation to regional policy it points to the Community objective of counteracting the centralising forces of the Common Market by distributing economic activity more evenly over the territory of the Community." We have all been saying this over the years, about the need for a better regional development policy but here is a specific dimension on which to hang that. Again, in the Commission's opinion, "the less favoured regions must have an internal network of communications appropriate to their present and future needs" and also that "they must be opened up to the main centre of the Community by rapid modern routes to reduce as far as possible the handicap of distances." So, obviously, we can see the implications there for contributions to the opening up of our own roadway network amongst other things.